[erlang-questions] 'cannot' /= 'can not'

[Hugo Mills]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:02:43AM +0200, empro2@REDACTED wrote:
> This is only the most recent occurrence that finally
> makes me write this:
> 
> <quote>
> [erlang-questions] Patch package OTP 20.3.8.3 released
> Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:13:22 +0200
> [...]
> Note! The kernel-5.4.3.2 application can *not* be applied
>       independently of other applications on an arbitrary
>       OTP 20 installation.
> [...]
> </quote>
> 
> If it can not be applied independently then it can also be
> applied independently

   Eh? In no way is that the implication here.

   "can *not*", to me as a native speaker of the language, is the same
as "cannot", with additional emphasis. I've been trying to identify
other meanings using alternative readings or logical inference, but
none of them come naturally, or would make any sense.

   You're asking for a change which makes no difference whatsoever.

   Hugo.

> - which, in this case, is
> probably not what is meant. But this is guesswork, relying
> on the reader already knowing the meaning of what is
> being said, rendering the saying it much less useful.
> 
> Modals are a mess (spoken languages are, after ceturies of
> abuse like the one discussed in "[erlang-questions] Orelse
> and andalso as short-hand for case"), but they convey
> critical meaning.
> 
> Nine(?) of ten "can not"s in the Erlang docs must be
> "cannot" to convey the correct meaning. Reading the docs has
> already made me convert every "can not" I read into
> "cannot" - I mean *every*, not only those in the Erlang
> docs - and then back again (only about 1 of 10 in the
> Erlang docs). This is a real, and substantial, waste of
> post-orbital CPU cycles; not the conversion itself, but the
> distraction from understanding whatever meaning the author
> actually tries to get across.
> 
> If someone with authority (and authorisation) could and
> would please write and run a script and convert all "can
> not" -> "cannot" in all OTP strings, binaries and comments?
> This will introduce errors, as there actually are a few,
> rare correct "can not"s, but it will correct about 9 times
> more of wrong ones that really need to be "cannot".
> 
> At least in the doc strings?
> 
> Please?
> 
> Michael
> 

-- 
Hugo Mills             | I used to be a mathematician, but I'm better now.
hugo@REDACTED carfax.org.uk |
http://carfax.org.uk/  |
PGP: E2AB1DE4          |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20180724/46611769/attachment.bin>